If there is no creator

[Vinayaka]

Thanks!

Are you familiar with the notion that the universe might be a product, outcome, or perhaps "emanation" of the laws of mathematics? I came across the notion many years ago, and then pretty much forgot about it until @Vouthon brought it up again a few months ago.

It seems to be inspired by the amazing precision of mathematics in predicting and/or describing natural regularities. The theory requires (or rests on) the notions that (1) mathematical laws are both metaphysically real and efficacious, and (2) that they predate the universe.

At any rate, it seems to me that if the theory were true, then the laws of mathematics would at the least be the material and perhaps instrumental causes of the universe. The clay and wheel in the creation of the pot, so to speak.

Nope, sorry. Not familiar with it. Math did fascinate me though, at one time, number theory in particular. Real numbers, and all that.

 

[Audie]

How so?



.

Prophecy involves reversing cause and effect.

 

[ChristineM]

Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?

I donot have an answer to it my self if i try to see it from an atheists POW. But they can ofcourse be correct just like religion can be correct.

There are several hypothesis of how the bb occured, i know of 27 which all are based on mathematics and/or observed phenomena in our universe.

There is no reason for a cause, in our universe the laws of thermodynamics (and hence causation) did not begin to coalesce until after the event so a cause is not necessarily required.

Also, not really a bang, a bang requires sound and for sound a medium is required for it to propagate.

 

[WalterTrull]

Math would surely exist, whether or not there
was a universe.

Wait! Wait! Math is a description of stuff and the relationships of stuff to other stuff. If there was no stuff, why would the descriptions still exist?

(Borrowing "stuff" from Mud, the original stuffing man.)

 

[WalterTrull]

Prophecy involves reversing cause and effect.

Huh? No, no, It's just being a super chess player and seeing 10 or 12 moves ahead.

 

[Sunstone]

Wait! Wait! Math is a description of stuff and the relationships of stuff to other stuff. If there was no stuff, why would the descriptions still exist?

Good question, Walter. There are at least two big theories about math. One is that math is what you just now said it is -- a description of things. The other theory is that it's more than a mere description. It's a set of laws governing the universe and how it behaves.

There are other theories too. But those are the big two -- put as simply as I can.

 

[WalterTrull]

The other theory is that it's more than a mere description. It's a set of laws governing the universe and how it behaves.

I don't see why that isn't the same thing. Descriptions of stuff relationships.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

One issue with the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is that in general the evolution of non-linear systems is not computable. This universe appears to be inherently non-linear. That is, the state in some space-time region is the result of multiple simultaneous external influences and those influences are in turn modified by the output of activity within the region. Yet even the most complex interactions appear to proceed at the same rate of speed, whereas one would expect computational delays in proportion to the complexity.

My own guess is that the mathematics is not that of numbers at all but of continuous geometries, with the evolution of systems being simply how things fit together with no need for numerical manipulations.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see why that isn't the same thing. Descriptions of stuff relationships.

Maybe this will help make it a bit clearer. One way to think about math is that it describes stuff, but does not cause or govern stuff. The other way to think about math is that it not only describes stuff, but also causes or governs it.

 

[FirstandAmistad]

Well, I'm not an atheist, but I do believe the scientific consensus that the Big Bang was the origin of time and space and really everything that we can understand at all. So the short answer is, I don't know. But it seems to me that positing a god as a creator in order to explain this is just pushing the question one step back. From where did God come? Why is it perfectly reasonable to assume that God is timeless and stretches beyond time and space, but that a universe before the Big Bang couldn't have also done so?

For a polytheist and pantheist such as myself, the notion of a transcendent creator makes little sense as the Cosmos is the sum of all that exists. In my beliefs, the Cosmos forms and sustains itself. Even the Gods were born within it, as all things are.

I agree a lot with this sentiment, I think. I believe that the gods (for lack of a better term since I'm not really sure how to succinctly describe my beliefs in supernatural entities) are a part of the universe and are the universe... as are we and everything else we ever have or ever will observe.

 

[WalterTrull]

The other way to think about math is that it not only describes stuff, but also causes or governs it.

You mean that math is God???? I really, really don't think so. Man, who could talk to math? Really, really good mathematicians? Could they do stuff? Ehhh, don't think so.

 

[Sunstone]

...even the most complex interactions appear to proceed at the same rate of speed...

Can you elaborate on what you see as the significance of the fact that "even the most complex interactions appear to proceed at the same rate of speed", please? Just curious.

 

[Sunstone]

You mean that math is God???? I really, really don't think so. Man, who could talk to math? Really, really good mathematicians? Could they do stuff? Ehhh, don't think so.

Math wouldn't quite be god. It would be more like the Tao. A non-sentient set of laws governing the universe.

 

[WalterTrull]

Math wouldn't quite be god. It would be more like the Tao. A non-sentient set of laws governing the universe.

But...you said cause. Do you mean that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?

I donot have an answer to it my self if i try to see it from an atheists POW. But they can ofcourse be correct just like religion can be correct.

Do you think that people who believe in a "creator" have these questions answered?

If a creator exists or existed, then it would have been part of "the existence" and therefore wouldn't have been able to "kickstart" it... no?

 

[WalterTrull]

If a creator exists or existed, then it would have been part of "the existence" and therefore wouldn't have been able to "kickstart" it... no?

Bullseye!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sunstone]

But...you said cause. Do you mean that?

Yes. But a god is more than a cause. A god is also some kind of sentient thing or being, among other things. The Tao is not a god because the Tao is neither sentient, nor a being. It's more like mathematical laws would be, if mathematical laws governed or caused stuff.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do you think that people who believe in a "creator" have these questions answered?

If a creator exists or existed, then it would have been part of "the existence" and therefore wouldn't have been able to "kickstart" it... no?

I can ofcourse ony talk for my self. but this is the kind of question i have asked my self for more then 20 years. always challenge my self to see if i can gain the inner wisdom/understandin of philosophical questions within the belief i have.

I thought maybe others who follow a religion or spiritual path or also atheists asked them self this kind of questions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?

Ever seen one of those bamboo water fountains where the bamboo shoot doesn't trip until a certain amount of water fills it first? That's how I feel the universe began: stuff collected until a threshold was achieved, causing the Big Bang.

But...you said cause. Do you mean that?

Causes don't have to be sentient, though.

 

[WalterTrull]

Yes. But a god is more than a cause.

Causes don't have to be sentient, though.

There is sentience. While God is probably not a separate sentience. There is sentience. Cause somehow has to incorporate that.